Don't agree with this one bit!

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Can I add that what you've quoted is one of the many reasons why wiki should never be relied upon to fully answer questions. It's sources aren't always referenced and once one article has been tinterwebbed many others copy the same unreferenced quotes as though they were gospel, when in actual fact the original was incorrect.

[TANGODANCER]

Seems to make sense that if unshorn hair is a rule, they can't really work in places ( most)where health and saftey won't have that. Better a turban that walking about like Geronimo surely? He observes the general dress code, the army respect his religion, seems fair to me.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Seems to make sense that if unshorn hair is a rule, they can't really work in places ( most)where health and saftey won't have that. Better a turban that walking about like Geronimo surely? He observes the general dress code, the army respect his religion, seems fair to me.

The point I'm making is that he is of a faction (a political faction) within a religion. As a political point he is declaring a religious requirement in order to express himself. now all that is fine, except his religious expression is a made-up twentieth century expat whinge and not a real religious requirement at all. As I've also pointed out, many many sikhs - most with long unshorn hair, have stood guard duty with bearskins without in the slightest being a lesser guardsman or a lesser Sikh (whether Khalsa or not). That's why it's not only not fair, but 'fraudulently representative'.

Edit: added at 4pm
He could either tie his hair up with a topknot kerchief and then don the bearskin or wear a small turban with the bearskin over the top. Either way he would still be a sikh, he would still be Khalsa, and he would certainly be a guardsman.
The argument that he must wear a turban to be a sikh and a Khalsa is false - that is what I mean by 'fraudulently representative'. You CAN be a sikh without having unshorn hair. You either are a Khalsa or you are not; if you are, that status is NOT defined by having to wear a turban.

[Montreal Wanderer]

The short answer to that Monty, is that yes, the turban is a traditional part of Sikh identity, but no, it is not mandatory like the 5 ks are.

Yet the second quote says it is mandatory so perhaps I need a longer answer....not that I doubt your intimate knowledge of Sikhism but...

There are five stages on the road to human perfection within the sikh religion, being a sikh is stage 3, stage 4 is being khalsa. The Khalsa was set up as a brotherhood of 'saints' (NB there is no direct translation) by the 10th and final Guru (excepting that he created the Adi Granth as the 11th Guru - the guru granth sahib). you become khalsa by repeating an oath in a temple before the guru granth sahib - that oath foreswears you to (among other things) to wear the 5ks. The khalsa oath does NOT forswear you to wear a turban. Khalsas who wear turbans do so because it is a reminder that 'you are sat upon the throne of consciousness', and because it marks the long haired sikhs apart from other religions. it is therefore part of the culture, but it is not a necessary part of the khalsa.

Indeed, Spotty, I understand the five K's and that the oath connected to them may not touch on the use of turban. This does not mean other things connected with Sikhism are not mandatory. The quote I gave you stating it was mandatory was from Wikipedia but perhaps you would accept something from a Sikh website where it is written:
The Turban is such a crucial article of faith that many Sikhs consider it to be more important that all the other Ks. Turbans may be of any color, and is tied in many different ways and styles.

NB - Look up the meaning of forswear [sic] in any good dictionary.

[superjohnmcginlay]

Seems to make sense that if unshorn hair is a rule, they can't really work in places ( most)where health and saftey won't have that. Better a turban that walking about like Geronimo surely? He observes the general dress code, the army respect his religion, seems fair to me.

The point I'm making is that he is of a faction (a political faction) within a religion. As a political point he is declaring a religious requirement in order to express himself. now all that is fine, except his religious expression is a made-up twentieth century expat whinge and not a real religious requirement at all. As I've also pointed out, many many sikhs - most with long unshorn hair, have stood guard duty with bearskins without in the slightest being a lesser guardsman or a lesser Sikh (whether Khalsa or not). That's why it's not only not fair, but 'fraudulently representative'.

Edit: added at 4pm
He could either tie his hair up with a topknot kerchief and then don the bearskin or wear a small turban with the bearskin over the top. Either way he would still be a sikh, he would still be Khalsa, and he would certainly be a guardsman.
The argument that he must wear a turban to be a sikh and a Khalsa is false - that is what I mean by 'fraudulently representative'. You CAN be a sikh without having unshorn hair. You either are a Khalsa or you are not; if you are, that status is NOT defined by having to wear a turban.

That's what I said. Silly hat on top of small silly hat. Job done.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

[*]

Why didn't they just put the silly hat over the turban. They're fcking massive.

Hide 'n' Sikh?

Just stick it in your signature. Will be easier in the long run

oops, have I been overusing it recently?

Not at all. Well, no more than I have a moan about something Middle East related

[Montreal Wanderer]

Can I add that what you've quoted is one of the many reasons why wiki should never be relied upon to fully answer questions. It's sources aren't always referenced and once one article has been tinterwebbed many others copy the same unreferenced quotes as though they were gospel, when in actual fact the original was incorrect.

Of course you may add, and I agree about Wiki. However, you have not quoted any source. I have now found another Sikh source which seems to imply the 5 K's and a D.

Turban. A symbol of royalty and dignity. Historically the turban has been held in high esteem in eastern and middle eastern cultures. Guru Gobind Singh transformed this cultural symbol into a religious requirement so that the Khalsa would always have high self-esteem. It differentiates Sikhs from other religious followers who keep long hair but wear caps or keep matted hair. The turban cannot be covered by any other head gear or replaced by a cap or hat. The turban is mandatory for Sikh men and optional for Sikh women.

This seems pretty conclusive to me.
If you don't agree take it up with Guru Gobind Singh. Note if you are Khalsa you cannot replace the turban with a cap or put anything on top (sorry, SJM - it was a great idea).

[Lost Leopard Spot]

The short answer to that Monty, is that yes, the turban is a traditional part of Sikh identity, but no, it is not mandatory like the 5 ks are.

Yet the second quote says it is mandatory so perhaps I need a longer answer....not that I doubt your intimate knowledge of Sikhism but...

There are five stages on the road to human perfection within the sikh religion, being a sikh is stage 3, stage 4 is being khalsa. The Khalsa was set up as a brotherhood of 'saints' (NB there is no direct translation) by the 10th and final Guru (excepting that he created the Adi Granth as the 11th Guru - the guru granth sahib). you become khalsa by repeating an oath in a temple before the guru granth sahib - that oath foreswears you to (among other things) to wear the 5ks. The khalsa oath does NOT forswear you to wear a turban. Khalsas who wear turbans do so because it is a reminder that 'you are sat upon the throne of consciousness', and because it marks the long haired sikhs apart from other religions. it is therefore part of the culture, but it is not a necessary part of the khalsa.

Indeed, Spotty, I understand the five K's and that the oath connected to them may not touch on the use of turban. This does not mean other things connected with Sikhism are not mandatory. The quote I gave you stating it was mandatory was from Wikipedia but perhaps you would accept something from a Sikh website where it is written:
The Turban is such a crucial article of faith that many Sikhs consider it to be more important that all the other Ks. Turbans may be of any color, and is tied in many different ways and styles.

NB - Look up the meaning of forswear [sic] in any good dictionary.

Monty. I know what I am talking about because I know many Sikhs, indeed I wrote a booklet on the sikh religion explaining it to teachers for use in this country. Canada has a large diaspora of Sikhs (although mostly on the west coast) and within the history of that diaspora there was heated argument about whether to allow unshaven sikhs onto the executive of the sikh organisation. I know turbans are worn by sikhs but I can only reiterate it isn't a defining feature. Now, within sikh politics there is a movement that is adamant that turbans should be worn in order to define oneself as a sikh - but that is an internal argument and an esoteric one at that. I also know that many pages on the internet declare that sikhs should wear a turban but they are mostly talking bollocks having quoted from sites that are of the militant political Kalistani faction. I could go on, but a logical person like yourself should be able to see through this.
Let me take you through it step by step:

Sikhs believe there are 5 stages of human spiritual development
Step 3 is to be a sikh
Sikhs can be unshaven
unshaven sikhs don't need a turban
Step 4 is to take an oath and become Khalsa
the khalsa oath says nothing about turbans.
Therefore it is nonsense to say I must wear a turban for religious reasons, those religious reasons being that I am a khalsa sikh.

Some (and mostly diaspora sikhs outside of India) proclaim that only khalsa are true sikhs, and only those that wear a turban are khalsa sikhs. But even within them are are factions with more outrageous stipulations, such as the Black Turban Akali Dal who insist you are not Khalsa unless you wear a black turban. These people are fringe elements within sikhdom, and need to be viewed as political movements within a religion.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Can I add that what you've quoted is one of the many reasons why wiki should never be relied upon to fully answer questions. It's sources aren't always referenced and once one article has been tinterwebbed many others copy the same unreferenced quotes as though they were gospel, when in actual fact the original was incorrect.

Of course you may add, and I agree about Wiki. However, you have not quoted any source. I have now found another Sikh source which seems to imply the 5 K's and a D.

Turban. A symbol of royalty and dignity. Historically the turban has been held in high esteem in eastern and middle eastern cultures. Guru Gobind Singh transformed this cultural symbol into a religious requirement so that the Khalsa would always have high self-esteem. It differentiates Sikhs from other religious followers who keep long hair but wear caps or keep matted hair. The turban cannot be covered by any other head gear or replaced by a cap or hat. The turban is mandatory for Sikh men and optional for Sikh women.

This seems pretty conclusive to me.
If you don't agree take it up with Guru Gobind Singh. Note if you are Khalsa you cannot replace the turban with a cap or put anything on top (sorry, SJM - it was a great idea).

This is bad translation on the part of the translator - I will continue this argument tomorrow - must go

[Montreal Wanderer]

Can I add that what you've quoted is one of the many reasons why wiki should never be relied upon to fully answer questions. It's sources aren't always referenced and once one article has been tinterwebbed many others copy the same unreferenced quotes as though they were gospel, when in actual fact the original was incorrect.

Of course you may add, and I agree about Wiki. However, you have not quoted any source. I have now found another Sikh source which seems to imply the 5 K's and a D.

Turban. A symbol of royalty and dignity. Historically the turban has been held in high esteem in eastern and middle eastern cultures. Guru Gobind Singh transformed this cultural symbol into a religious requirement so that the Khalsa would always have high self-esteem. It differentiates Sikhs from other religious followers who keep long hair but wear caps or keep matted hair. The turban cannot be covered by any other head gear or replaced by a cap or hat. The turban is mandatory for Sikh men and optional for Sikh women.

This seems pretty conclusive to me.
If you don't agree take it up with Guru Gobind Singh. Note if you are Khalsa you cannot replace the turban with a cap or put anything on top (sorry, SJM - it was a great idea).

This is bad translation on the part of the translator - I will continue this argument tomorrow - must go

You obviously have expertise in the matter (and I have none though I know the meaning of forswear! ). I certainly can't get into any argument on translating Punjabi to English. The Sikh code of conduct appears to be called the Rehat Maryada. Section 4, Chapter 10, subsection t of this lengthy document states (in English translation):

(t) For a Sikh, there is no restriction or requirement as to dress except for he must wear Kachhehra [A drawer type garment fastened by a fitted string round the waist, very often worn as an underwear] and turban. A Sikh woman may or may not tie turban.

It also states this "Rehat Maryada is the only version authorized by the Akal Takht, the seat of supreme temporal authority for Sikhs. It's [sic] implementation has sucessfully [sic] achieved a high level of uniformity in the religious and social practices of Sikhism."

Over to you.

[Lord Kangana]

I strolled past Buck Palace the other day. Me and the GF were convinced the guards were women.

Women! Did you hear me hobo, bloody women!!

Its political correctionism all over again. Women, and now bloody foreigners. Where will it end? I'll tell you, the Eurocrats will force us to have a German Royal Family guarded by Scotsmen or something...

[Montreal Wanderer]

I strolled past Buck Palace the other day. Me and the GF were convinced the guards were women.

Women! Did you hear me hobo, bloody women!!

Its political correctionism all over again. Women, and now bloody foreigners. Where will it end? I'll tell you, the Eurocrats will force us to have a German Royal family guarded by Scotsmen or something...

Turn around is fair play. At one point we had a Scot's royal family guarded by Germans (see Prinz Ruprecht von der Pfalz aka Rupert of the Rhine).

[William the White]

I strolled past Buck Palace the other day. Me and the GF were convinced the guards were women.

Women! Did you hear me hobo, bloody women!!

Its political correctionism all over again. Women, and now bloody foreigners. Where will it end? I'll tell you, the Eurocrats will force us to have a German Royal family guarded by Scotsmen or something...

Turn around is fair play. At one point we had a Scot's royal family guarded by Germans (see Prinz Ruprecht von der Pfalz aka Rupert of the Rhine).

They all did a great job defending English fields. God bless Em. The Long and the Short and the Greek.

[Hoboh]

I await the day middle class housing estates are over run with Eastern European thugs and crim's and listen to the middle class bleating
At least my castle walls will be secure

[Harry Genshaw]

As recently as 1987 I knew of someone who was advised by an NCO at a recruiting office that he couldn't join the Guards as he was "the wrong effin colour". Not too long after, Prince Charles made a remark at how he never saw any BME soldiers on guards parade. First chap iirc was a Richard Stokes(?) who quit after a while, citing the overt racism he experienced as a result.

Dont know about you Hoboh, but I'm glad times like that have changed.

[Montreal Wanderer]

As recently as 1987 I knew of someone who was advised by an NCO at a recruiting office that he couldn't join the Guards as he was "the wrong effin colour". Not too long after, Prince Charles made a remark at how he never saw any BME soldiers on guards parade. First chap iirc was a Richard Stokes(?) who quit after a while, citing the overt racism he experienced as a result.

Dont know about you Hoboh, but I'm glad times like that have changed.

I didn't realize any of this. It seems Prince Charles did more than remark - he caused change and good for him, See article on Richard Stokes and Charlie.

[Lord Kangana]

I know the Guards have always recruited for ceremonial duties above other considerations. As one ex-squaddie remarked to me, very f*cking big and very f*cking stupid is their typical MO.

[Dujon]

Do Sikhs ever go bald?

[Montreal Wanderer]

Do Sikhs ever go bald?

Yes, but not from bad haircuts.

[Hoboh]

As recently as 1987 I knew of someone who was advised by an NCO at a recruiting office that he couldn't join the Guards as he was "the wrong effin colour". Not too long after, Prince Charles made a remark at how he never saw any BME soldiers on guards parade. First chap iirc was a Richard Stokes(?) who quit after a while, citing the overt racism he experienced as a result.

Dont know about you Hoboh, but I'm glad times like that have changed.

It's changing things to accomodate that irks, equal means equal not changing things so some are favoured to be treated more 'equally' than others.
I'm in the if you cannot speak English and wish to reside in this country then why the feck should interpreters be employed by anyone except the police investigating crimes? whatever the situation abroad is down to the individual countrys to sort out but I don't live in France Germany or Spain.